by Pausanias (x. 19) as the name for a horse among the Gauls of the

Delphic expedition (Diefenb. I. p. 67). Resalt. In gathering together the evidence in favour of the Celtic extrac

tion of the Galatians as afforded by their language I have omitted many questionable affinities; and even of those which are given some perhaps will appear uncertain. But taken as a whole the evidence,

if I mistake not, places the result beyond a doubt; and the few Supposed German etymologies real or imagined, which have been alleged on German attinities,

the other side, will be quite insufficient to turn the scale. Thus it is asserted that the names of the leaders of the Asiatic expedition, LUTARIUS and LEONNORIUS, are both German; and that the Galatian tribe TEUTOBODIACI and the Galatian town GERMANOPOLIS point very clearly to the same origin. On these four words the whole stress of the Teutonic theory may be said to rest.

And if they had stood alone, the German affinities of these how to be names might perhaps have been accepted. But with the vast mass explained.

of evidence on the other side, it becomes a question whether some more satisfactory account cannot be given of them. Thus Lutarius (or Luturius) is said to be the same name with the Frankish Lothaire and the Saxon Luther, and therefore Teutonic (see Graff Althochd. Sprachsch. iv. P. 555); but among the Gallic chieftains one Lucterius is mentioned (Cæsar B. G. vii. etc.), and the identity of the names Lutarius and Lucterius is at least not improbable (Diefenb. II. p. 253; Zeuss, G. C. p. 78, derives the name Lucterius from luct, 'agmen,' 'pars': see also p. 180). Again the other Galatian commander Leonnorius has certainly a namesake in a genuine Celtic saint, a native of Britain (Acta Sanct. Jul. 1. see Diefenb. II. p. 254), and there seems to be no reason for assigning a Teutonic parentage to this word. In the name Teutobodiaci indeed the first component seems very plainly to mean 'German': but, even granting that this is not one of those very specious but very deceptive affinities which are the snares of comparative philology, the word need not imply that the tribe itself was Teutonic. If the second component is rightly taken to denote victory (buad,' buaid,' comp. Boadicea, Bodiocasses, Bodiontici, Bodicus, etc.; see Zeuss G. C. p. 27, Glück


P. 53), then the Teutobodiaci were not necessarily Teutons any more than Thessalonica was Thessalian. The remaining word Germanopolis seems in its very form to betray its later origin, or at all events to mark some exceptional occupants other than the main population of the country.

It is quite possible indeed, as Thierry supposes (1. p. 225), that A possible swept away with the hordes of Gaulish invaders a small body of element. Germans also settled in Asia Minor, and this may be the true account of the names Lutarius and Teutobodiaci. We know that of all the Gauls the Belgians were most mixed up with the Germans, and it is with the Belgian members of the Celtic family especially that the Gauls of the Asiatic settlement seem to be connected. But the evidence is scarcely strong enough to bear the strain of the German theory, even when pared down to these very meagre dimensions. Beyond this we cannot go without doing violence to history. There is every reason then for believing that the Galatian Concla

sion. settlers were genuine Celts, and of the two main subdivisions into which modern philologers have divided the Celtic race, they seem rather to have belonged to the Cymric, of which the Welsh are the living representatives. Thus in the age when St Paul preached, a native of Galatia spoke a language essentially the same with that which was current in the southern part of Britain. And if—to indulge a passing fancy—we picture to ourselves one of his Asiatic converts visiting the far West to barter the hair cloths of his native country for the useful metal which was the special product of this island, we can imagine that finding a medium of communication in a common language he may have sown the first seeds of the Gospel and laid the foundations of the earliest Church in Britain.



Two rival theories.


the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed the brethren of the Lord.' On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed ; that


i The interest in this subject, which ference or periodicals, such as those in was so warmly discussed towards the Studien u. Kritiken by Wieseler; Die close of the fourth century, has been re- Söhne Zebedäi Vettern des Herrn (1840, vived in more recent times by the pub- p. 648), and Ueber die Brüder des Herrn, lication of Herder's Briefe Zweener Brü- etc. (1842, p. 71). In preparing for der Jesu in unserem Kanon (1775), in the second edition I looked over the which the Helvidian hypothesis is put careful investigation in Laurent's Neuforward. Since then it has formed the test. Studien p. 155 sq (1866), where subject of numberless monographs, dis- the Helvidian hypothesis ismaintained, sertations, and incidental comments. but saw reason to make any The most important later works, with change in consequence. The works of which I am acquainted, are those of Arnaud, Recherches sur l'Epitre de Jude, Blom, De τους αδελφοίς et ταϊς άδελ- and of Goy (Mont. 1845), referred to in pais to û Kuplov (Leyden, 1839); of Bishop Ellicott's Galatians i. 19, I have Schaf, Das Verhältniss des Jakobus Bru- not seen. My object in this disserta. ders des Herrn zu Jakobus Alphäi (Ber- tion is mainly twofold; (1) To place the lin, 1842); and of Mill, The accounts of Hieronymian hypothesis in its true our Lord's Brethren in the New Testa- light, as an effort of pure criticism un. ment vindicated etc. (Cambridge, 1843). supported by any traditional sanction; The two former adopt the Helvidian and (2) To say a word on behalf of the view; the last is written in support of Epiphanian solution, which seems, at St Jerome's hypothesis. Blom gives least of late years, to have met with the the most satisfactory statement which fate reserved for td uéra in literature I have seen of the patristic authorities, and theology, as well as in politics, úr' and Schaf discusses the Scriptural argu- αμφοτέρων ή ότι ου ξυνηγωνίζοντο ή ments most carefully. I am also largely φθόνη του περιείναι διεφθείροντο. I supindebted to the ability and learning of pose it was because he considered it idle Mill's treatise, though he seems to me to discuss a theory which had no friends, to have mistaken the general tenor of that Prof. Jowett (on Gal. i. 19), while ecclesiastical tradition on this subject. balancing the claims of the other two Besides these monographs I have also solutions, does not even mention the consulted, with more or less advantage, existence of this, though in the early articles on the subject in works of re- centuries it was the received account.

these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord's brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy. Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the A third

propound. fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvi- ed by

Jerome. dius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing so had laid great stress on the example of the Lord's mother who had borne children to her husband. In or about the year 383 Jerome, then a young man, at the instigation of the brethren’ wrote a treatise in reply to Helvidius, in which he put forward his own view! He maintained that the Lord's brethren were His cousins after the flesh, being sons of Mary the wife of Alphæus and sister of the Virgin. Thus, as he boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only but of Joseph also. These three accounts are all of sufficient importance either from Names

assigned their real merits or from their wide popularity to deserve con

to these sideration, and I shall therefore investigate their several claims. three. As it will be convenient to have some short mode of designation,

· Adv. Helvidium de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariæ, 11. p. 206 (ed. Vall.). Comp. Comment. ad Gal. i. 19.

I shall call them respectively the Epiphanian, the Helvidian, and the Hieronymian theories, from the names of their most zealous advocates in the controversies of the fourth century when the question was most warmly debated.

But besides the solutions already mentioned not a few others

have been put forward. These however have been for the most part Arbitrary built upon arbitrary assumptions or improbable combinations of &ssumptions known facts, and from their artificial character have failed to secure

any wide acceptance. It is assumed for instance, that two persons of the same name, James the son of Alphæus and James the Lord's brother, were leading members of the Church of Jerusalem, though history points to one only'; or that James the Lord's brother mentioned in St Paul's Epistles is not the same James whose name occurs among the Lord's brethren in the Gospels, the relationship intended by the term 'brother' being different in the two cases *; or that brethren' stands for 'foster-brethren,' Joseph having undertaken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their father's death"; or that the Lord's brethren had a double parentage, a legal as well as an actual father, Joseph having raised seed to his deceased brother Clopas by his widow according to the levirate law“; or lastly, that the cousins of Jesus were rewarded with the title of His brethren, because they were His steadfast disciples, while His

own brothers opposed Him'. to be set All such assumptions it will be necessary to set aside. In themaside.

selves indeed they can neither be proved nor disproved. But it is safer to aim at the most probable deduction from known facts than to build up a theory on an imaginary foundation. And, where the question is so intricate in itself, there is little temptation to

e.g. Wieseler Ueber die Brüder etc., l.o., p. 80 sq. According to this writer the James of Gal. ii. 9 and of the Acts is the son of Alphæus, not the Lord's brother, and therefore different from the James of i. 19. See his notes on Gal. i. 19, ü. 9. An ancient writer, the pseudo-Dorotheus (see below, p. 286, note), had represented two of the name as bishops of Jerusalem, making

the son of Alphæus the successor of the Lord's brother.

? The writers mentioned in Schaf, p. II.

3 Lange in Herzog's Real-Encycl. in the article •Jakobus im N.T.'

* Theophylact; see below, p. 290.

3 Renan Vie de Jésus p. 24. But in Saint Paul p. 285 he inclines to the Epiphanian view.

« 前へ次へ »